HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Rioux)SAN • LU I S• OB ISPO *COUNTY
HOUSING
TrUST RJND
HOUSING
FOR ALL" Nl eetin9:(} ?C -a-ILo
August 19, 2016
Delivered via email to advisorybodies rr,slocity.org, ddavidson@slocity.org and xfow[eL@Slociiy.org
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 22 Chorro Street — Item 1 on your August 24, 2016 Agenda
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing to support the approval of 22 Chorro Street because San Luis Obispo desperately needs additional
housing, especially rental housing and affordable housing. Adding any new rental housing to the City's
housing stock will have many benefits, including 1) increasing our unsustainably low rental vacancy rate,
2) reducing the incidence and degree of housing cost burden among local renters and 3) increasing housing
opportunities for local residents who are homeless. These benefits will accrue even from student housing
because students compete with everyone else in our overly tight housing market.
Because of these benefits, I encourage you to expedite the approval process for this project to the greatest
extent feasible. I also encourage you to allow the owner of the project to rent parking spaces to tenants of the
building separately from their apartments. Doing so will provide an incentive for tenants to not own cars. And
finally, I would also like to clarify some aspects of State Density Bonus Law (SDBL).
Since the project will include four dedicated very low income units, the percentage of affordable units is
actually 22% and not 11%. Under SDBL, the percentage of affordable units is calculated based on the number
of allowed units before adding the density bonus units (i.e., 18 units are allowed and therefore 4/18 = 22.2%).
This project would qualify for a 35% density bonus if the four units were only restricted to low income as
opposed to very low income households.
With this high percentage of very low income units, the project has the right, under SDBL, to receive three
incentives or concessions from the City. In reviewing the staff report I see only two concessions (parking and
height). However, these concessions really aren't the ones required by SDBL. The reduced parking is allowed
under City policies. The increased height is needed to physically build the bonus units. Consequently, the
increased height must be approved in addition to the three incentives/concessions required by SDBL.
I encourage you to identify additional incentives and/or concessions for the project as required by SDBL.
Thank you for considering my comments.
5i cerely,
Cie1d L. Rioux
Executive Director
X: A&ocacy\22 Chouo PC 20] 6-08-24 doc
71 Zaca Lane, Suite 130, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ♦ (805) 543-5970 4 www.slochtf.org